Foilsiú
F/53258 (27 October 2022)
Ó Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Foilsithe
An t-eolas is déanaí
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Foilsithe
An t-eolas is déanaí
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
In the matter of an application under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Decision of a Single Member
Name of applicant: [ ]
Name of deceased: [ ]
Date of death: [ ]
Application number: F/53258
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The applicant is refused under Para 13 of the Scheme.
1. [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’). The completed application was completed on [ ] and received by the Tribunal on [ ].
2. The applicant is the former partner of [ ] (hereafter ‘the deceased’) who died on [ ]. The claim is grounded on the fatal injuries of the deceased’s injuries. He was shot dead at his home on [ ]. The coroner recorded gunshot wounds to [ ]. The deceased’s then partner found his unresponsive body at their home after the shooting.
3. The Tribunal at the outset wishes to extend its sympathies to the applicant and to her family and to acknowledge their trauma. It is conscious that the following decision is based on a technical application of impersonal rules which the Tribunal is obliged to follow, but at the heart of this application is the violent loss of a father to [ ] young [ ].
4. The claim is made under paragraph 3(c) of the Scheme, which allows dependents of a person who has died as a result of injuries criminally inflicted to claim compensation. It is made on behalf of the following dependents:
[ ] Former Partner
[ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ]
There were further dependents in the deceased’s life. These include:
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
The applicant states furnished these dependents’ birth certificates to the Secretariat.
5. However a further dependent might include [ ]. The applicant states [ ] was in an ‘on-off’ relationship with the deceased, but that she was not living with him at the time of his death. On the other hand the garda report states that [ ] had found the deceased’s body in [ ]’. The gardai further state that at the time of the incident the deceased had been living with [ ].
6. For reasons outlined below the status and connection of each of these dependents is not explored further for the purposes of this decision. However if the decision were to be appealed the circumstances of the dependents would have to be explored further.
7. Two preliminary matters require consideration. First is whether the application can be considered despite being submitted outside the three-month timeframe provided for by paragraph 20 (formerly Para 21) of the Scheme. The second is whether under Para 13 (formerly 14) of the Scheme any compensation should be withheld or reduced as a consequence of the deceased’s conduct, character or way of life.
8. Para 20 of the Scheme states in its relevant parts:
"Applications should be made as soon as possible but, except in circumstances determined by the Tribunal to justify exceptional treatment, not later than three months after the event giving rise to the injury".
9. In this case the incident occurred on the [ ]; any application should have been made on or before [ ]. It was in fact submitted on [ ], being approximately three and a half years after the deadline elapsed.
10. In order to assess whether a late application is admissible the Tribunal must determine whether there are circumstances, which on its consideration, justify exceptional treatment.
11. Two further dates are relevant to the consideration of this point. The first is the [ ], which in a handwritten note is marked ‘DN’ on the application form. This is an administrative shorthand for ‘date of notification’. The ‘DI’ – or ‘date of issue’ is then marked as [ ]. This is the date upon which the Tribunal Secretariat have recorded that they sent the form out to the applicant.
12. The application form in respect of a Fatal Injury as a Result of a Crime of Violence which was then sent to the applicant did not enquire as to the reason why any application might have been made outside the three-month timeframe. Upon receipt of the application, the Tribunal Secretariat made further enquiry as to the various aspects of the claim, but it did not ask for any explanation for the delay in making the application.
13. It appears that no information was communicated to the applicant in [ ] or thereafter which would have indicated to her that a time limit applied and that if there was delay the circumstances of that delay would be considered. That in itself is a relevant consideration, which added to the general trauma associated with a fatal injury claim, amounts to a circumstance by which the Tribunal deems it appropriate to allow the claim to be considered outside the normal timeframe.
14. Paragraph 14 of the Scheme permits a withholding or refusal of compensation having regard to the victim of crime’s criminal record, character or way of life. The paragraph in full reads (with emphasis added):
"No compensation will be payable where the Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct of the victim, his character or his way of life make it inappropriate that he should be granted an award and the Tribunal may reduce the amount of an award where, in its opinion, it is appropriate to do so having regard to the conduct, character or way of life of the victim."
15. It is worth highlighting that the conduct of the victim, his character and way of life must be considered under consideration Para 14. The victim under the Scheme is the person who suffered the injuries; dependents are defined differently. The dependents’ lives, conduct and character (and indeed their needs) are not catered for in the wording of Para 14. In this case the way of life and conduct of the deceased fall to be considered.
16. According the Garda report) the deceased had [ ] previous convictions at the time of his death. These were mainly for [ ] offences but included a conviction for [ ] and a conviction for [ ]. It appears that the most recent convictions were in [ ] and [ ]. It is noted that the latter was [ ] prior to the deceased’s death and that the convictions in respect of [ ] offences were of some antiquity.
17. In an updated Garda report dated [ ] the responsible Garda Inspector indicated an unwillingness to directly give an opinion on the deceased’s way of life [ ].
18. The applicant was asked to comment on the deceased’s criminal convictions and the provision of the Scheme which allows for deductions, or no award, where the deceased’s way of life makes such an award inappropriate. She stated by email of [ ] that she knew nothing about the deceased’s criminal convictions, and as to his way of life all she knew was that the deceased was a fantastic father who supported his children. Specifically asked about the Garda Report of [ ] the applicant expressed the emotional, spiritual, physical and financial hardship experienced by her [ ] as a result of [ ]s death. She stated that they were victims of the heinous crime of [ ] being murdered.
19. As stated above, the Tribunal is bound by the terms of the Scheme and cannot take into account the evident hardship the applicant’s sons experienced in its analysis of Para 14.
20. The Tribunal is of the opinion that, on the balance of probabilities, the deceased was significantly involved in crime at the time of his death. [ ] It further notes that there is no evidence that the deceased had any form of employment (he is described as “unemployed” on the application form). It concludes that criminality was a primary source of income for the deceased.
21. The Tribunal does not know the specific nature of the crime from which the deceased profited. The applicant, when asked, was not able to address this further. While she spoke of the fantastic role the deceased had played in parenting her children, this is not relevant to the conduct and way of life under consideration here.
22. The Tribunal notes that the nature of the deceased’s death is consistent with a targeted unlawful killing which is unfortunately consistent with an involvement in crime.
23. The Tribunal finds it inappropriate to grant an award in compensation from State funds in circumstances where it has found that the deceased was substantially involved in crime, profited from that crime, and where it appears that that involvement in crime was linked to the cause of the deceased’s death.
24. I therefore make no award in this case.
Tricia Sheehy Skeffington
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
27 October 2022